JK said: ďHe has been away with England for two or three days and they have done some treatment on it. He is not fit to play this weekend. Itís clearly something thatís not quite right and therefore, after heís reaggravated it, itís better to leave it a bit and give it some more time.Ē

Blast. Have we got any FB cover other than Swiel? How long is Ross Chisholm out?

I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Quinky KinWalker may still be injured. Has there been an update?
I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player for the first try on Saturday and injuring himself in the process.........

He's still only picked for his attack in spite of his poor defence. I'd rather Swiel at 15.

I think it is best to work with combinations who have played together - so, I would play Visser on wing and Swiel at FB.
The big pro for this is that you can just yell "Go Tim!" at the TV whenever one of them gets the ball.

never sleepI think it is best to work with combinations who have played together - so, I would play Visser on wing and Swiel at FB.
The big pro for this is that you can just yell "Go Tim!" at the TV whenever one of them gets the ball.

Love the way you've picked out the most important element!

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to bleat about it all over the internet"

never sleepI think it is best to work with combinations who have played together - so, I would play Visser on wing and Swiel at FB.
The big pro for this is that you can just yell "Go Tim!" at the TV whenever one of them gets the ball.

Quinky KinWalker may still be injured. Has there been an update?
I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player for the first try on Saturday and injuring himself in the process.........

He's still only picked for his attack in spite of his poor defence. I'd rather Swiel at 15.

That's selective. Still, at least we won't have a fullback who was stepped by a prop.

Quinky KinWalker may still be injured. Has there been an update?
I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player for the first try on Saturday and injuring himself in the process.........

He's still only picked for his attack in spite of his poor defence. I'd rather Swiel at 15.

That's selective. Still, at least we won't have a fullback who was stepped by a prop.

To suggest it was selective would be to say Charlie's defence is normally excellent. It isn't.

Quinky KinWalker may still be injured. Has there been an update?
I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player for the first try on Saturday and injuring himself in the process.........

He's still only picked for his attack in spite of his poor defence. I'd rather Swiel at 15.

That's selective. Still, at least we won't have a fullback who was stepped by a prop.

To suggest it was selective would be to say Charlie's defence is normally excellent. It isn't.

Because of course I said it was excellent... in no post whatsoever. I did however say it was greatly improved, although the fact that he missed a tackle seems to be rather damning in your eyes. Maybe he should retire?

But what about Mike Brown not tackling a prop, eh? Best offload him and get someone who never misses a tackle. Such as... erm... let me think... such as, no player who ever played the game?

Quinky KinWalker may still be injured. Has there been an update?
I can see Visser being selected this week. Whether it's Morris, Swiel or Walker at fullback, we have a range of options. Walker at fullback wouldn't overly worry me - he'd be an incredible strike runner to return kicks, and his defence seems to have improved of late.

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player for the first try on Saturday and injuring himself in the process.........

He's still only picked for his attack in spite of his poor defence. I'd rather Swiel at 15.

That's selective. Still, at least we won't have a fullback who was stepped by a prop.

To suggest it was selective would be to say Charlie's defence is normally excellent. It isn't.

Because of course I said it was excellent... in no post whatsoever. I did however say it was greatly improved, although the fact that he missed a tackle seems to be rather damning in your eyes. Maybe he should retire?

But what about Mike Brown not tackling a prop, eh? Best offload him and get someone who never misses a tackle. Such as... erm... let me think... such as, no player who ever played the game?

Brown's defence is normally excellent, so you can allow him the odd mistake. And he wasn't 'stepped'. He simply missed the tackle. He was 'stepped' earlier in the game by Veianu, but I'd say that was more about the Tigers player's amazing footwork.

Charlie's is not, so even if it has improved, it's still not good enough. To suggest a failed tackle that led to a try is 'subjective' is misleading as it suggests the trend is that it is normally the opposite of that instance. It is not.

RodneyRegisStop being ridiculous slinky. Charlie's a poor defender, this much is obvious.

So you disagree that his defending has improved? On the basis of a missed tackle? Meanwhile you point out that two players managed to skip their way past Brown, but his defence is unquestionable...

FWIW I think Brown is one of the best defenders around. Missing the odd tackle is no massive sin, unless it's Walker who misses it, apparently.

You could start an argument in an empty room. Nobody is basing their analysis of Walker's defence on one missed tackle.

There are so many straw men in your post it's like a cornfield.

You clearly missed this part:

Quote:

Apart from failing to stop their smallest player

in response to the suggestion that Walker's defence is improved.
Or perhaps you could clarify or quantify the basis for your sweeping suggestion that

Quote:

Charlie's a poor defender, this much is obvious.

Maybe it's as astute as your claim that we "never use medical jokers"... apart from all the ones that were subsequently pointed out to you. Or should we go over your (non) understanding of the bonus point system?

You're right, over the past 3 or 4 years we have used medical jokers when it's either that or fail to put a side for a match.

Let me try and break down your response and show you where you are using false premise to make your argument.

So you disagree that his defending has improved? Nobody did. We said his defence is poor, that doesn't mean we don't think it has improved.

Meanwhile you point out that two players managed to skip their way past Brown, but his defence is unquestionable...
Well, that's just a contradiction.

Missing the odd tackle is no massive sin, unless it's Walker who misses it, apparently. Again, nobody said it was a massive sin to miss a tackle, and nobody said that it was only a massive sin if it was Walker.

RodneyRegisYou're right, over the past 3 or 4 years we have used medical jokers when it's either that or fail to put a side for a match.
Let me try and break down your response and show you where you are using false premise to make your argument.

So you disagree that his defending has improved? Nobody did. We said his defence is poor, that doesn't mean we don't think it has improved.

Meanwhile you point out that two players managed to skip their way past Brown, but his defence is unquestionable...
Well, that's just a contradiction.

Missing the odd tackle is no massive sin, unless it's Walker who misses it, apparently. Again, nobody said it was a massive sin to miss a tackle, and nobody said that it was only a massive sin if it was Walker.

Well, let me ask you again, nice and clearly:

My comment was that Walker's defence has improved greatly. Do you agree that it has improved greatly, or do you disagree?

Walker's defence has improved, and he is in great form. Still fairly suspect, and I doubt it'll ever be his strong point, partly due to his size, but I reckon he'll probably score more points for us than he concedes. If people want his defence to improve significantly, he'll probably have to bulk up a lot, which will mean he'll lose his pace and quick feet, a la Ugo.

As for him covering at full back, not sure I've seen him do it, but would have Swiel there ahead of him, and bit of a moot point now Morris is back, Chisholm back soon and Brown only out for one game

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net